Subject: Re: [NNTP] Internationalisation

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 19:06:36 -0700

Clive D W Feather <[email-masked]> writes:
> Russ Allbery said:

>> I wouldn't mention UTF-8 here.  There's very little use of UTF-8 in
>> practice on Usenet, and what little there is is in bodies and is tagged
>> via MIME and therefore already covered by the MIME reference.

> This paragraph is intended to cover both headers and body. MIME doesn't
> imply UTF-8, and I wanted some mention of the latter in this survey of
> the current situation.

After further thought, I think the current text is good enough and it's
not worth making a change here.

>> >    10.2  This specification
>> 
>> >    Part of the role of this present specification is to eliminate this
>> >    confusion and promote interoperability as far as possible.  At the
>> >    same time, it is necessary to accept the existence of the present
>> >    situation and not gratuitously break existing implementations and
>> >    arrangements, even if they are less than optimal.  Therefore current
>> >    practice has been taken into consideration while in producing this
>> >    specification.

> Are you suggesting dropping this paragraph? It expresses the principles
> used in making the decisions we have made. I think something like it
> belongs here, though it could go at the end of 10.1.

No, that was unintentional; I think that paragraph is fine.

> Well, when we first looked at this issue (a couple of years ago, I
> think) we decided not to make a decision. But I have no problem with
> changing this (and, given the new stronger stance on I18N, it's probably
> the right thing to do). It involves some consequential changes outside
> 10.2 (e.g. in the syntax).

It looks like this change was made?  I think it's the right thing to do.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>